Larken Rose: Statist Contradictions

[JSDev]

I've been following Larken Rose on Facebook lately. He recently posted this as a teaser for a project he's working. It's pretty awesome.

STATIST CONTRADICTION #1 (and how to expose it):Everyone who wants a "government" wants an OUTSIDE "authority," which stands apart from all the individual judgments of all the peasants, to dictate and enforce "rules" which make people behave properly. So you'll hear statists say "there have to be rules," or "someone has to be in charge," or "society requires the rule of law," and so on. All such assertions (and many more) imply that there needs to be a "final decider" and ultimate all-powerful thing whose decrees OUTRANK and OVERRULE the individual judgment of all the normal people, and whose judgment the peasantry must defer to, in order to avoid (you guessed it) anarchy!Here's the slight, glaring, gigantic, patently obvious problem with such a notion. The statist NEVER thinks that ANY old entity, issuing and enforcing ANY old rules, will suffice. If you AGREE with the statist that "someone has to be in charge" and that "there have to be rules," but then suggest having some power-happy homicidal tyrant be "in charge," and having "the rules" including slaughtering half the population, EVERY statist will object. This raises the obvious question: if there has to be an outside "authority" controlling, ruling and governing everyone else, who the hell is the statist to decide WHAT that "authority" should dictate? If "the rules" say "give the king half of what you produce, and your first-born," to OBJECT to those rules is to put your OWN judgment above that of the rule-making "authority." And if an individual can do that, then by definition, it isn't "authority" anymore. (For a rather silly video making the point, do a YouTube search for my name and "The Rules.")What every single statist in the world really wants "government" for is to take HIS OWN PERSONAL JUDGMENT, and forcibly impose it on everyone else via a supposed "authority," so that: a) the statist doesn't have to do it himself; b) everyone is forced to abide by HIS values; c) he takes on no personal risk for trying to bend others to his will, and; d) he accepts no personal blame for trying to violently control others. But the moment it is someone ELSE'S preferences and values being forced on HIM, he will complain. Because all statists are hypocrites (just as I was, when I was one).One very easy way to put this glaring contradiction in front of a statist is to ask him, is there ANY situation, real or hypothetical, in which you would feel justified in DISOBEYING and/or RESISTING the "laws" of "government"? Every statist, if he thinks about it at all, answers "yes." This demonstrates that, when it comes right down to it, he believes that, if he wants it to be so, his OWN personal judgment can OUTRANK the edicts of that outside "authority," and it can be perfectly moral (at least in some cases) for him to BREAK "the rules" and DISOBEY "authority." The problem is that "authority" MEANS the right to rule, which logically implies the obligation to obey. If there is ANY scenario in which the statist could decide that those in power do NOT have the right to enforce something on him, and that he does NOT have an obligation to blindly obey, that means that he DOESN'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE the outside thing to be "authority." Because suddenly those cliche sayings listed above turn into ""there have to be rules... although sometimes people should break them," "someone has to be in charge... although sometimes people should disobey him," and "society requires the rule of law... and sometimes requires the law to be violated." Then it all just kind of turns into meaningless, self-contradictory mush.One would literally have to be insane to really and truly believe that every person (including himself) should DISREGARD his own judgment and moral code, in favor of blind obedience to some "authority." And NO statist all the way believes that. What every statist in the world actually believes is, "authority has the right to rule... except when it doesn't...; and the people have an obligation to obey... except when they don't." And that makes all of the supposed "authority" of "the powers that be" evaporate. If YOU can "outrank" it whenever you want to, it ain't your lord and master anymore.STATIST CONTRADICTION #2:We are raised to respect and even revere the dictates of the ruling class. We don't merely refer to what they tell us to do as commands or threats (which they are), but as "laws." The very concept of "authority" implies that they don't merely have the ABILITY to boss everyone else around, but that they have the moral RIGHT to do so. So extortion becomes "taxes," forcibly controlling people becomes "law enforcement," disobeying the politicians becomes "crime," and so on. Now, in some cases the authoritarian commands might happen to coincide with your own moral judgment. For example, hopefully you recognize murder as wrong, and "legislation" also declares it to be "illegal" (well, unless it's state-sanctioned murder, wearing the label of "law enforcement" or "national defense"). The contradiction shows up when the commands of the ruling class CONFLICT with someone's own moral code. The way to bring this out is simple: ask a statist, if some law commands you to do something you believe to be immoral, what should you do? In principle, there are only two answers:1) "I am morally obligated to disregard and disobey that command, break the law, behave as a 'criminal,' and accept that my OWN conscience outranks all the politicians and legislation in the world."2) "I am morally obligated to IGNORE my own values, my own moral code and conscience, and obey the commands of the rulers."The first option makes you an anarchist. The second makes you a slave. It also makes you a schizophrenic looney, because it boils down to this: "I believe that the RIGHT thing for me to do is the thing that I think is WRONG." Or, to put it another way, "I judge that I shouldn't rely on my judgment." So once again, the belief in "government" (or any other outside "authority") is inherently insane and necessarily requires internal contradictions.(P.S. "The Project" will bring people to such realizations WAY more gently and passively than what I just wrote, without ANY judgment or contrary opinions being thrown at the user at all. I just explain it in the blunt assertion and argument method here because it's easier.)P.P.S. To learn more about the project, or to support it's making, visit:http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Funding/Project/000010/Unlocking-the-Cage/

[labmath2]

What would you say to this statist?

"A society is a group of individuals who have to come to some consensus about the way their society is run. Since actions of individuals in that society has a direct or indirect impact on the lives of other members, there has to exist some way to structure society so we can come to a consensus of the what the rules are. Rule making is unnecessary when we all agree. If everyone in our society were Christians, it would be unnecessary to make rules about religious freedom. If everyone in our society were Caucasian, it would be unnecessary to make rules about racial equality. Rules essentially govern two things, maintain order and set up a system of rule making. In USA, government is the resulting institution of those rules. In some societies, their solutions are priests, kings, council, elderly e.t.c. If anyone disagrees with the way we choose to govern ourselves, they have two options; find a society more suitable to them or seek to change their current society by working within the confines of the current rules."

[FreedomPhilosophy]

What would you say to this statist?

"A society is a group of individuals who have to come to some consensus about the way their society is run. Since actions of individuals in that society has a direct or indirect impact on the lives of other members, there has to exist some way to structure society so we can come to a consensus of the what the rules are. Rule making is unnecessary when we all agree. If everyone in our society were Christians, it would be unnecessary to make rules about religious freedom. If everyone in our society were Caucasian, it would be unnecessary to make rules about racial equality. Rules essentially govern two things, maintain order and set up a system of rule making. In USA, government is the resulting institution of those rules. In some societies, their solutions are priests, kings, council, elderly e.t.c. If anyone disagrees with the way we choose to govern ourselves, they have two options; find a society more suitable to them or seek to change their current society by working within the confines of the current rules."

Where did a group of individuals come to a consensus about how society is run? Representative democracy certainly has not achieved consensus, instead majorities discriminate against minorities. Many societies are also the product of conquests, they did not arise spontaneously through consensus.A problem with government is that the people who constitute this institution do not comply with the rules they seek to have enforced upon the rest of society. So government constitute a separate society one that is parasitic on the wider population. Government is about rulers, not a consistent set of rules that all people must comply with. 

[labmath2]

Where did a group of individuals come to a consensus about how society is run? Representative democracy certainly has not achieved consensus, instead majorities discriminate against minorities. Many societies are also the product of conquests, they did not arise spontaneously through consensus.

 

A problem with government is that the people who constitute this institution do not comply with the rules they seek to have enforced upon the rest of society. So government constitute a separate society one that is parasitic on the wider population. Government is about rulers, not a consistent set of rules that all people must comply with.

 

 

 

 

I believe you can find answers to your questions as it pertains to the American society and the rules that govern them by reading any book about the history of the American government.

 

A government is the system by which a state or community is governed (Wikipedia).

[Prairie]

Since actions of individuals in that society has a direct or indirect impact on the lives of other members, there has to exist some way to structure society so we can come to a consensus of the what the rules are. Rule making is unnecessary when we all agree. [...] If anyone disagrees with the way we choose to govern ourselves, they have two options; find a society more suitable to them or seek to change their current society by working within the confines of the current rules.

I see a society with rules as like any other grouping of people: every person is an individual and operating with the same freedom as in any other situation. People in a society with rules individually use social pressure and physical force to make others do what they consider necessary to bring them in line with the rules. The confines one works in aren't rules, but the aggression of other members trying to get their way. In other words, the rules are something in the minds of the members and are not a physical constraint, and systems of rules can be evaporated without working within them.Stepping back inside the box, if people don't agree, they might not agree on whether rules are necessary.I see rules as a strategy (among others) for resolving conflict. They have qualities that make them less-likely to encounter opposition than other strategies: equal enforcement, unambiguous wording so that the same rules are used, visibility so others can know about them.I think that one motivation for having conflict with others is possible personal gain. Rules can provide a framework for getting more personal gain, by enlisting the force of the rule system for one's own benefit. I see rules as like any sort of rigid tool-like physical object, in that they provide leverage that isn't possible without them. If there are no rules, people have to resolve conflict entirely out of regard for each other. All other ways do not resolve it, only make it worse.

[powder]

What would you say to this statist?

"A society is a group of individuals who have to come to some consensus about the way their society is run. Since actions of individuals in that society has a direct or indirect impact on the lives of other members, there has to exist some way to structure society so we can come to a consensus of the what the rules are. Rule making is unnecessary when we all agree. If everyone in our society were Christians, it would be unnecessary to make rules about religious freedom. If everyone in our society were Caucasian, it would be unnecessary to make rules about racial equality. Rules essentially govern two things, maintain order and set up a system of rule making. In USA, government is the resulting institution of those rules. In some societies, their solutions are priests, kings, council, elderly e.t.c. If anyone disagrees with the way we choose to govern ourselves, they have two options; find a society more suitable to them or seek to change their current society by working within the confines of the current rules."

democracy is just a nice way of saying 'Mod Rules' or the tyranny of the majority - it is unethical.  I don't care how people choose to organize society as long as participation or non-participation is voluntary and no one violates the NAP - which is what government does.  

[JSDev]

What would you say to this statist?

"A society is a group of individuals who have to come to some consensus about the way their society is run. Since actions of individuals in that society has a direct or indirect impact on the lives of other members, there has to exist some way to structure society so we can come to a consensus of the what the rules are. Rule making is unnecessary when we all agree. If everyone in our society were Christians, it would be unnecessary to make rules about religious freedom. If everyone in our society were Caucasian, it would be unnecessary to make rules about racial equality. Rules essentially govern two things, maintain order and set up a system of rule making. In USA, government is the resulting institution of those rules. In some societies, their solutions are priests, kings, council, elderly e.t.c. If anyone disagrees with the way we choose to govern ourselves, they have two options; find a society more suitable to them or seek to change their current society by working within the confines of the current rules."

 

I'd tell them their 7th grade social studies understanding of government is deeply flawed. The dead giveaway is in this statement: "If anyone disagrees with the way we choose to govern ourselves, they have two options..." There is NO "we" and there is NO choice. Those are euphemisms for gangs with guns.

[powder]

I'd tell them their 7th grade social studies understanding of government is deeply flawed. The dead giveaway is in this statement: "If anyone disagrees with the way we choose to govern ourselves, they have two options..." There is NO "we" and there is NO choice. Those are euphemisms for gangs with guns.

well said Dev, and besides those 2 options are not very appealing or helpful to anyone who understands volunteerism.  It is like telling a slave he can go work for another master or try to make things better with the current slave master, as long as he still does what he is told.  

[labmath2]

Thanks for the responses.

 

To Powder, it is fantastic that you have an idea of a society you would like to live in. I just have a few question for you.

1. How do you determine how to make rules, how do you make rules and how do you enforce it?

2. How do you deal with those who disagree?

 

To JSDev, you say there is no we and there is no choice. That is not completely true. There is a we as long as we occupy the same environment. A man living on a small island could say there is no we because the actions of others have such little impact on him (this is just my assumption, they could dumb toxic waste ends up on his island which would not be little impact) that the only his decisions affect him. The moment we (meaning multiple individuals) share a common environment, then we have to deal with how others action affect us. Whether we use a gun or not, we have to put systems in place that constrain (incentive and disincentive) individuals actions. I am willing to consider (it is likely the case) that there is a better incentive system than just threatening people who do not agree with us. I will like to end with a question to you.

 

How would you deal with someone who does not believe in private property in a voluntary society?

[Prairie]

How would you deal with someone who does not believe in private property in a voluntary society?

X=person who doesn't believe in privary society, they=people of voluntary societyIf X didn't try to take their property, then there would be nothing to deal with. If X tried to take their property, they would defend with force. Which would be entirely compatible with X who doesn't believe in private property, as X would be using force to gain access to things, and they would in X's view simply be using the same kind of force to keep access to them.In other words, it seems an inherently contradictory view: you don't own this, and because I believe so I'm going to take it from you because I want to use it, because we all own it.

[labmath2]

X=person who doesn't believe in privary society, they=people of voluntary societyIf X didn't try to take their property, then there would be nothing to deal with. If X tried to take their property, they would defend with force. Which would be entirely compatible with X who doesn't believe in private property, as X would be using force to gain access to things, and they would in X's view simply be using the same kind of force to keep access to them.In other words, it seems an inherently contradictory view: you don't own this, and because I believe so I'm going to take it from you because I want to use it, because we all own it.

 

I like your response, but i think you made a mistake. Just because someone does not believe in private property does not mean they believe in forcefully taking stuff from you or preventing you from using things. It just means that when you are not currently using something, they do not see why they should be prevented from using it. The idea that they take your property does not exist for them, so you are the one initiating force.

[Prairie]

i think you made a mistake. Just because someone does not believe in private property does not mean they believe in forcefully taking stuff from you or preventing you from using things.

I think I covered this with the opening sentence:

If X [non-propertist] didn't try to take their property, then there would be nothing to deal with. If X tried to take their property, they would defend with force.

The idea that they take your property does not exist for them, so you are the one initiating force.

I understood the context to be dealing with someone who doesn't believe in property. If they don't initiate force to be able to use something of yours, it's not a problem that they are annoyed at you for using force to prevent them from using your own property. As I opened with, it's only a problem if they initiate force, in which case they've shown themselves to not be a believer in no property or private property.

[JSDev]

Thanks for the responses.To Powder, it is fantastic that you have an idea of a society you would like to live in. I just have a few question for you.1. How do you determine how to make rules, how do you make rules and how do you enforce it?2. How do you deal with those who disagree?To JSDev, you say there is no we and there is no choice. That is not completely true. There is a we as long as we occupy the same environment. A man living on a small island could say there is no we because the actions of others have such little impact on him (this is just my assumption, they could dumb toxic waste ends up on his island which would not be little impact) that the only his decisions affect him. The moment we (meaning multiple individuals) share a common environment, then we have to deal with how others action affect us. Whether we use a gun or not, we have to put systems in place that constrain (incentive and disincentive) individuals actions. I am willing to consider (it is likely the case) that there is a better incentive system than just threatening people who do not agree with us. I will like to end with a question to you.How would you deal with someone who does not believe in private property in a voluntary society?

Not sure. It's like asking how would you deal with someone who doesn't believe in gravity lol. Anyway, I'm not sure how your island metaphor relates to statism/democracy. Are you suggesting that social rules and environmental issues are only possible with a state? This just seems like a reformulation of "muh roads!". There's decades worth of reading material on how things could work in a voluntary society, if you're truly curious. No offense, but I'm not spending my time going over that for you.

[labmath2]

I understood the context to be dealing with someone who doesn't believe in property. If they don't initiate force to be able to use something of yours, it's not a problem that they are annoyed at you for using force to prevent them from using your own property. As I opened with, it's only a problem if they initiate force, in which case they've shown themselves to not be a believer in no property or private property.

 

I do not understand what you mean by this. Can you please take time to express yourself more clearly?

 

Not sure. It's like asking how would you deal with someone who doesn't believe in gravity lol. Anyway, I'm not sure how your island metaphor relates to statism/democracy.

So you are equating private property systems with gravity? (i guess there is nothing i can say to persuade you if you believe private property is like gravity)

It is not an island metaphor, i am simply stating the state is a system of governance. No matter what system you set up, some people will disagree, so how do you deal with that? Private property is just a specific case of that. Socialists, for example, believe in personal property (like clothes), but not private property (like land). Do you just force them to accept the rules you believe is just?

[JSDev]

I do not understand what you mean by this. Can you please take time to express yourself more clearly?So you are equating private property systems with gravity? (i guess there is nothing i can say to persuade you if you believe private property is like gravity)It is not an island metaphor, i am simply stating the state is a system of governance. No matter what system you set up, some people will disagree, so how do you deal with that? Private property is just a specific case of that. Socialists, for example, believe in personal property (like clothes), but not private property (like land). Do you just force them to accept the rules you believe is just?

Why do you make a distinction between land and clothing? Because your clothes are made of cotton grown on land, I can just take the shirt off your back, right?

[Prairie]

Can you please take time to express yourself more clearly?

I hear you to be saying that you did not get clarity when reading my post and that you would like me to take more time to help you get clarity, and that you consider the cause to be some shortcoming in my actions, and none in your own.I'll review the context, then explain the paragraph in question.

How would you deal with someone who does not believe in private property in a voluntary society?

My first response was essentially that there are two possibilities: non-propertist (i.e. a person who doesn't believe in private property) is peaceful or non-peaceful. If peaceful, there's nothing to deal with. If non-peaceful, then they are contradicting their view by using aggression to get control of something.You replied in a way that suggested either misunderstanding or not reading carefully:

I like your response, but i think you made a mistake. Just because someone does not believe in private property does not mean they believe in forcefully taking stuff from you or preventing you from using things.

I made allowance for both possibilities: they do, or they don't, i.e. that a non-propertist may be peaceful.You further wrote that

The idea that they take your property does not exist for them, so you are the one initiating force.

which seems irrelevant, unless you were implying something that you didn't elaborate, hence I reviewed the context of the discussion to be about how to deal with a non-propertist:

I understood the context to be dealing with someone who doesn't believe in property.

The context of this sub-discussion is the question you asked, which I quoted before offering my response.

If they [non-propertist] don't initiate force to be able to use something of yours, it's not a problem that they [non-propertist] are annoyed at you for using force to prevent them [non-propertist] from using your own property.

A summary of the peaceful non-propertist.

As I opened with, it's only a problem if they initiate force, in which case they've shown themselves to not be a believer in no property or private property.

A summary of the non-peaceful non-propertist, and how they contradict non-propertism if they force someone else to give them something.

[labmath2]

If they [non-propertist] don't initiate force to be able to use something of yours, it's not a problem that they [non-propertist] are annoyed at you for using force to prevent them [non-propertist] from using your own property.

 

Problem with this statement is that they do not believe in private property. They cannot stop you from using a property that no one is currently using, but they expect you not to attack them for using property which you believe is yours (i.e land or house). They do not believe land or house can belong to any single person, but may be used by anyone as long as they do not forcefully prevent others from using it.

 

Why do you make a distinction between land and clothing? Because your clothes are made of cotton grown on land, I can just take the shirt off your back, right?

 

Why should anyone be able to draw lines on the ground and use force on anyone that enters that land?

[JSDev]

If they [non-propertist] don't initiate force to be able to use something of yours, it's not a problem that they [non-propertist] are annoyed at you for using force to prevent them [non-propertist] from using your own property.

 

Problem with this statement is that they do not believe in private property. They cannot stop you from using a property that no one is currently using, but they expect you not to attack them for using property which you believe is yours (i.e land or house). They do not believe land or house can belong to any single person, but may be used by anyone as long as they do not forcefully prevent others from using it.

 

 

 

Why should anyone be able to draw lines on the ground and use force on anyone that enters that land?

Seriously? It's the same reason I can't assert a right to your shirt. This is ridiculous already.

[Prairie]

If they [non-propertist] don't initiate force to be able to use something of yours, it's not a problem that they [non-propertist] are annoyed at you for using force to prevent them [non-propertist] from using your own property.

Problem with this statement is that they do not believe in private property.

I didn't claim that they did. I'm failing to come to a conclusion other than that you aren't reading what I write carefully, or think that this discussion is about the legitimacy of non-propertists.A non-propertist will either be angry with you but respect that you believe in property, or use force to prevent you from using those things the way you want to that they deem unjustified. Once someone uses force against voluntarists who have not aggressed on them, it's aggression and dealt with like any aggression.

They cannot stop you from using a property that no one is currently using, but they expect you not to attack them for using property which you believe is yours (i.e land or house).

Right, and the voluntarist response, if they act on these expectations and use force, is to treat them like any aggressor and use force in self-defense to subdue the attacker.I don't see any compatibility with one set of people who view physical property as no different than one's own body being their property, and people who view physical things as being their temporary property whenever they feel that they have the most legitimate use of it at the moment and will use force to gain use of it if the other person doesn't want them to use it. That is, no compatibility between a propertist and a non-peaceful non-propertist.

[labmath2]

I don't see any compatibility with one set of people who view physical property as no different than one's own body being their property, and people who view physical things as being their temporary property whenever they feel that they have the most legitimate use of it at the moment and will use force to gain use of it if the other person doesn't want them to use it. That is, no compatibility between a propertist and a non-peaceful non-propertist.

 

The problem i have is primarily with that statement. I don't know if you mean using property that someone does not want you to use itself is force or forcefully taking the property from someone is force. If you mean the latter, then i agree with you, it is force, but the former is not force from the perspective of a non private property right individual. For example. you have a piece of land which you claim to own, If someone who does not believe in private property enters that land and decides to camp on it, you trying to forcefully remove them would be perceived as you initiating force against them which merits self defense. However, if you were doing something on the land when they came by, they could not use the land without forcing you off first, so they simply go to the next closest presently unused land.

[powder]

Thanks for the responses.

 

To Powder, it is fantastic that you have an idea of a society you would like to live in. I just have a few question for you.

1. How do you determine how to make rules, how do you make rules and how do you enforce it?

2. How do you deal with those who disagree?

 

I don't have an idea of a society that I would like to live in as if it is some sort of fantasy land where everyone gets along peacefully and wears flowers in their hair  - I already live my life everyday in a voluntary, non-aggressive way.  So do you I hope.  I don't use force to get money and food and have my wants and desires met, I don't use force to impose my ideas or opinions on people who disagree with me.  It is called the NAP.  

 

I don't determine how to make the rules, why would anyone listen to me, or any person of group of people?  That is the point, the appeal to, and delegation of authority (the right to control others with force) to a ruling class is the most dangerous thing the world has ever come up with.  

 

I negotiate and cooperate with people who disagree with me in my personal life, I don't use force.  All sane and rational people agree with the NAP, as long as no-one uses force, it does not matter what type of system you set up to get things done in society, but if you adhere to the NAP, it is no longer governance.  

[labmath2]

I don't have an idea of a society that I would like to live in as if it is some sort of fantasy land where everyone gets along peacefully and wears flowers in their hair  - I already live my life everyday in a voluntary, non-aggressive way.  So do you I hope.  I don't use force to get money and food and have my wants and desires met, I don't use force to impose my ideas or opinions on people who disagree with me.  It is called the NAP.  

 

I don't determine how to make the rules, why would anyone listen to me, or any person of group of people?  That is the point, the appeal to, and delegation of authority (the right to control others with force) to a ruling class is the most dangerous thing the world has ever come up with.  

 

I negotiate and cooperate with people who disagree with me in my personal life, I don't use force.  All sane and rational people agree with the NAP, as long as no-one uses force, it does not matter what type of system you set up to get things done in society, but if you adhere to the NAP, it is no longer governance.  

I understand that you want to live in a society where the rule is the NAP, but that does not answer either of my questions. Even NAP alone is flexible to interpretation and who gets to set those boundaries? 

[powder]

I understand that you want to live in a society where the rule is the NAP, but that does not answer either of my questions. Even NAP alone is flexible to interpretation and who gets to set those boundaries? 

labmath, you either didn't read, or didn't understand what I wrote.  I did answer both questions.  I didn't say I want to live where the rule is the NAP, I said I already do, and so do all good and rational people.  To think that we need to make an moral exception for a ruling class is madness.  If you understand what the NAP is then you understand that you don't need to 'enforce' it, you only need to defend against people who violate it.  

 

Set what boundaries?  in what way is the NAP flexible?  

 

You clearly have different ideas about what the NAP is and what constitutes property rights.  Every ethical and rational person abides by the simple rules of the NAP and property rights.

labmath, you need to respond to this Dev's post, and answer my question about how the NAP is 'flexible' before I can continue with this conversation...  

Seriously? It's the same reason I can't assert a right to your shirt. This is ridiculous already.

[labmath2]

As far as Devs post goes, i am not sure what his question or concern his. My shirt is my shirt because others accept that it is my shirt. My shirt has no special property that makes it mine, just like a land or house has no special property that makes it one persons. My property is only my property because others accept the concept of private property and accept that certain properties are mine. 

 

I stopped the discussion because with Dev because he seems to believe that property rights (An-Cap property rights) are a fact of nature which means there is no argument that will make him consider an alternative, including the fact that property rights are currently not An-Cap property rights.

 

To say you have answered my question by claiming it is an invalid question because "I didn't say I want to live where the rule is the NAP, I said I already do, and so do all good and rational people." This means all those who disagree with you about NAP must be irrational. Then you go on to say "If you understand what the NAP is then you understand that you don't need to 'enforce' it, you only need to defend against people who violate it." This appears to be double speak as enforcing it is taking action against those who act against it (violate it). If others believe something else constitutes a just society and they are equally willing to act "to defend against people who violate it," would they also be justified in doing so?

[JSDev]

As far as Devs post goes, i am not sure what his question or concern his. My shirt is my shirt because others accept that it is my shirt. My shirt has no special property that makes it mine, just like a land or house has no special property that makes it one persons. My property is only my property because others accept the concept of private property and accept that certain properties are mine.

 

I stopped the discussion because with Dev because he seems to believe that property rights (An-Cap property rights) are a fact of nature which means there is no argument that will make him consider an alternative, including the fact that property rights are currently not An-Cap property rights.

 

To say you have answered my question by claiming it is an invalid question because "I didn't say I want to live where the rule is the NAP, I said I already do, and so do all good and rational people." This means all those who disagree with you about NAP must be irrational. Then you go on to say "If you understand what the NAP is then you understand that you don't need to 'enforce' it, you only need to defend against people who violate it." This appears to be double speak as enforcing it is taking action against those who act against it (violate it). If others believe something else constitutes a just society and they are equally willing to act "to defend against people who violate it," would they also be justified in doing so?

I'd argue it was I who stopped the conversation. You never answered my question as to why you make a distinction between shirts and land. You are only interested in defending a position rather than having any real curiosity for anarchism. You think you can come to a forum devoted to libertarianism and all that it entails, and blow our minds with your nonsensical ideas on property rights like we haven't heard this shit before? You have a tremendous lack of respect and empathy for people who have thought about these things for a very long time. Why are you here? What do you expect to get out of this conversation?

 

Do you own your body or do others have to agree that it belongs to you? And if they disagree?

[MMX2010]

As far as Devs post goes, i am not sure what his question or concern his. My shirt is my shirt because others accept that it is my shirt.

 

If you truly believed that, then you wouldn't complain if I were to (through magic or technology) convince 100% of people that your shirt isn't your shirt.  You'd surrender to their collective demand for your shirt, merely because it's a collective demand for your shirt.

 

 

 

I stopped the discussion because with Dev because he seems to believe that property rights (An-Cap property rights) are a fact of nature which means there is no argument that will make him consider an alternative, including the fact that property rights are currently not An-Cap property rights.

 

You could've at least said, "JSDev ought to stop the discussion with me, labmath, because I believe that property rights are non-natural and socially-defined.  Hence no naturalistic argument in favor of property rights will convince me that property rights aren't socially-defined."

[JSDev]

Labmath, I'd suggest that rather than you trying to dissuade us of our theory of property, a theory that has been tested and in practice within 100s of years of common law, where most law comes from, how about you describe your theory of property and how it is better than ours at resolving property disputes. You can start by describing your theory as it relates to our most fundamental property, our bodies. **Your theory of property rights has to be consistent, predictable, and universal, that is it cannot be arbitrary and it must appeal to reason** You have the burden of proof, that your theory is better than one that has been finely tuned over 100s of years and laid down on well worn cowpaths. Let's do this very methodically so that the curious among us have an opportunity to really think about the new ideas you'll be teaching us.

[labmath2]

TO JSDev

To the first question, what makes a distinction between shirts and lands, many things. A shirt is made of different materials, it has different qualities and can travel with a person wherever they go. If you are speaking in terms of property, then shirts are personal property which is the product of one transforming elements in nature which are naturally unused by planting cotton, harvesting it, then making it into threads to make a shirt. A land on the other hand is always there, we can transform the land (for example through planting), but we cannot make more landmass than already exists.  

 

For the second and third question, i will attempt to answer in one way, slavery. There was a time when some people were owned because the environment where they found themselves was populated with people who believes they were slaves and acted in such a way to enforce it.

 

TO MMX2010

For your first comment, it is already the case that you accept certain rules that you disagree with if you live in the US. I would imagine it would be very difficult to live among people who believe a shirt is not mine and constantly try to take it from me. It would be even more difficult if they  threatened to imprison me if i did not hand over he shirt.

 

I have yet to hear someone make the case that property rights are naturalistic. The closes i have heard to it is the case that control=ownership, but that has a lot of problems.

 

back to JSDev

What do i expect to get out of this conversation? The same i got out of the conversation when i came into it, a different way of thinking. I think libertarian rights might produce the best results for society, but the arguments are not sufficient to make then a natural order. All rights are based on axioms that are not necessarily true. Property rights are based on the idea that one owns himself, but self ownership is not a fact of nature, self control is, otherwise slavery would be physically impossible. Those who have different ideas about what society should be use different axioms and produce different results. 

 

I do not have a theory of rights because i cannot produce an ought from an is. I am merely trying to get people to reevaluate their views.

[JSDev]

TO JSDevTo the first question, what makes a distinction between shirts and lands, many things. A shirt is made of different materials, it has different qualities and can travel with a person wherever they go. If you are speaking in terms of property, then shirts are personal property which is the product of one transforming elements in nature which are naturally unused by planting cotton, harvesting it, then making it into threads to make a shirt. A land on the other hand is always there, we can transform the land (for example through planting), but we cannot make more landmass than already exists. For the second and third question, i will attempt to answer in one way, slavery. There was a time when some people were owned because the environment where they found themselves was populated with people who believes they were slaves and acted in such a way to enforce it.TO MMX2010For your first comment, it is already the case that you accept certain rules that you disagree with if you live in the US. I would imagine it would be very difficult to live among people who believe a shirt is not mine and constantly try to take it from me. It would be even more difficult if they threatened to imprison me if i did not hand over he shirt.I have yet to hear someone make the case that property rights are naturalistic. The closes i have heard to it is the case that control=ownership, but that has a lot of problems.back to JSDevWhat do i expect to get out of this conversation? The same i got out of the conversation when i came into it, a different way of thinking. I think libertarian rights might produce the best results for society, but the arguments are not sufficient to make then a natural order. All rights are based on axioms that are not necessarily true. Property rights are based on the idea that one owns himself, but self ownership is not a fact of nature, self control is, otherwise slavery would be physically impossible. Those who have different ideas about what society should be use different axioms and produce different results. I do not have a theory of rights because i cannot produce an is from an ought. I am merely trying to get people to reevaluate their views.

So you admit then that you have no theory. Sorry, but everyone who wants to live in a civilized peaceful society NEEDS a theory, explicitly stated or not. Even socialists have a theory, they believe in collective ownership of property. A civilized society, be it libertarian or non-libertarian, REQUIRES some form of property rights to resolve conflicts over scarce resources. You need rules to determine how to assign ownership - when that ownership is in dispute. How do you propose to resolve these conflicts? (I made some changes to my entry above since you have posted. Please re-read for added clarity)

[labmath2]

So you admit then that you have no theory. Sorry, but everyone who wants to live in a civilized peaceful society NEEDS a theory, explicitly stated or not. Even socialists have a theory, they believe in collective ownership of property. A civilized society, be it libertarian or non-libertarian, REQUIRES some form of property rights to resolve conflicts over scarce resources. You need rules to determine how to assign ownership - when that ownership is in dispute. How do you propose to resolve these conflicts? (I made some changes to my entry above since you have posted. Please re-read for added clarity)

 

No, i have no theory. I never claimed to have a theory. I do however, think it is important that we all (or at least as many as possible) agree to whatever theory we choose. This is why i asked these two questions

1. How do you determine how to make rules, how do you make rules and how do you enforce it?

2. How do you deal with those who disagree?

 

You can have a theory or rule in mind and that may even be better than the current one (an-cap rules are arguably better than the current rules), but without answering those two questions collectively, it will just be one theory competing with another theory for dominance.

[JSDev]

No, i have no theory. I never claimed to have a theory. I do however, think it is important that we all (or at least as many as possible) agree to whatever theory we choose. This is why i asked these two questions1. How do you determine how to make rules, how do you make rules and how do you enforce it?2. How do you deal with those who disagree? You can have a theory or rule in mind and that may even be better than the current one (an-cap rules are arguably better than the current rules), but without answering those two questions collectively, it will just be one theory competing with another theory for dominance.

Sorry, "ancap" rules aren't just something we pulled out of our ass. Question #1 and #2 have been answered over 100s of years of common law. The burden of proof is on you to come up with a set of alternative rules, that are better at resolving conflicts than what we've been doing for centuries. Just to be clear, what we have now is the usurpation of these common law rules by gangs, asserting, through brute force alone, their own rules for applying ownership. No coincidence, they always rule in their own favor. This is not reason, it is not philosophy, and it DOES NOT resolve conflicts, it creates conflict.

[powder]

As far as Devs post goes, i am not sure what his question or concern his. My shirt is my shirt because others accept that it is my shirt. My shirt has no special property that makes it mine, just like a land or house has no special property that makes it one persons. My property is only my property because others accept the concept of private property and accept that certain properties are mine. 

 

I stopped the discussion because with Dev because he seems to believe that property rights (An-Cap property rights) are a fact of nature which means there is no argument that will make him consider an alternative, including the fact that property rights are currently not An-Cap property rights.

 

To say you have answered my question by claiming it is an invalid question because "I didn't say I want to live where the rule is the NAP, I said I already do, and so do all good and rational people." This means all those who disagree with you about NAP must be irrational.

 

Yes, they must be.  It is not OK to initiate force, or take property without consent (NAP), this is accepted by all sane and mentally adept people, even if not cognitively recognized as we live by this rule, even children, esp criminals.  You did not explain in what way you think this simple axiom is 'flexible'.  

 

 

Then you go on to say "If you understand what the NAP is then you understand that you don't need to 'enforce' it, you only need to defend against people who violate it." This appears to be double speak as enforcing it is taking action against those who act against it (violate it). If others believe something else constitutes a just society and they are equally willing to act "to defend against people who violate it," would they also be justified in doing so?

 

You don't 'enforce' the NAP, how is defending yourself from a mugger enforcing anything, it is self-defense.  

 

I find it interesting that you would be raising these types of arguments on a board like this - they have all been addressed so many times.  You are either not convinced, or have not read or understood what anarchy and the NAP are all about, or you are trying to convince others of something you know they clearly reject.  Or, am I missing something?  

 

[B1-66ER]

Concerning the issue of private ownership of land, I beleive it's a fundamentally Western notion that if you improve upon it, you own it.(Homesteading) Of course the problem of conflict could arise in such situations and i'm surprised no one mentioned 3rd Party Arbitration which would certainly mete out any disputes in a manner befitting the NAP.

[powder]

Concerning the issue of private ownership of land, I beleive it's a fundamentally Western notion that if you improve upon it, you own it.(Homesteading) Of course the problem of conflict could arise in such situations and i'm surprised no one mentioned 3rd Party Arbitration which would certainly mete out any disputes in a manner befitting the NAP.

Why does it matter what you or anyone else believes?  You own yourself, you own the affects of your actions.  This is not a Western notion or cultural opinion, it is philosophy, it is a universal truth.  Other 'cultural' definitions of property ownership, whether they are accepted by the general population or not, would then be a violation of the NAP, which itself is universal.  

[B1-66ER]

Why does it matter what you or anyone else believes?  You own yourself, you own the affects of your actions.  This is not a Western notion or cultural opinion, it is philosophy, it is a universal truth.  Other 'cultural' definitions of property ownership, whether they are accepted by the general population or not, would then be a violation of the NAP, which itself is universal.  

 

I suppose it doesn't matter, I was simply establishng the basis upon which private property has traditionally been defined. If you insist it isn't a western or cultural opinion but a universal truth, to-ma-to  ta-mah-toh, in either case it's applicable and the basis of private ownership.